Cellular Memory

[Keanumoreira]

@Marxist: Some of the most ludicrous things in history, that "no person in our time could possibly believe", have in fact, been proven correct. "The world is round? You surely must be joking". Oh, and they laughed, and they laughed some more, all the way along Columbus' journey to the New World, and when Ferdinand Magellan became the first person to circumnavigate the planet. Who was laughing now?

 

The fact is, we don't understand our own brains as much as some of us would like to believe. For all I know, all the memories of my ancestors' could be weaved right into my DNA, and although I personally don't believe in genetic or cellular memory, I like to keep an open mind, because the fact is that you, me, and no one else here can say 100% that it doesn't exist. Some of histories' greatest discoveries came from the greatest audacities. The reason for this debate is to tackle this phenomena and understand how the human machine really works. The only way it would be useless, is if we didn't discuss it at all. I admire your rationalism, and despite agreeing with you, I don't agree with not looking at every possibility. One of the most fundamental mechanisms of what makes us who we are is asking questions when they arise, no matter how ridiculous. And just because it is ridiculous, does not mean it isn't true. History has taught us that much.

[marharth]

@Marxist: Some of the most ludicrous things in history, that "no person in our time could possibly believe", have in fact, been proven correct. "The world is round? You surely must be joking". Oh, and they laughed, and they laughed some more, all the way along Columbus' journey to the New World, and when Ferdinand Magellan became the first person to circumnavigate the planet. Who was laughing now?

This is commonly used as a argument and I am not sure why.

 

That was before critical thinking and before the scientific method was used. It is a lot different in the modern age.

[Keanumoreira]

@Marxist: Some of the most ludicrous things in history, that "no person in our time could possibly believe", have in fact, been proven correct. "The world is round? You surely must be joking". Oh, and they laughed, and they laughed some more, all the way along Columbus' journey to the New World, and when Ferdinand Magellan became the first person to circumnavigate the planet. Who was laughing now?

This is commonly used as a argument and I am not sure why.

 

That was before critical thinking and before the scientific method was used. It is a lot different in the modern age.

 

That doesn't matter. The principles are still the same, and challenges of equal value are presented to us all the time. There were limitations then, there are limitations now. The point is that people will always call something impossible when that isn't entirely the case every time.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Keanumoreira

[Marxist ßastard]

"The world is round? You surely must be joking". Oh, and they laughed, and they laughed some more, all the way along Columbus' journey to the New World...

Completely wrong. Every word, even the prepositions.

 

Ancient Greek astronomers knew that the Earth was a sphere – it was common knowledge as early as 400 BC. In 240 BC Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth to an error of less than 20%. Around 500 AD the Indian mathematician Aryabhata estimated the circumference to within 1%. The Divine Comedy, written in the early 1300s, both acknowledged a spherical Earth and discussed its implications. Mandeville's Travels, written in 1360, replicated Eratosthenes's calculation. This map, made in 1482, depicted a single quadrant of a spherical Earth after Ptolemy. In 1492, just about every educated person in Europe believed that the Earth was a sphere, with a circumference of about 25 000 miles.

 

Columbus wasn't a sole beacon of light unto the unwashed masses who warned him that his ship would sail off the edge of the Earth. He was, in fact, the crank – he denied Eratosthenes's calculation, believing that the Earth was much smaller than it actually is. He proposed sailing directly west from the Canary Islands during hurricane season, confident that he would eventually hit Asia. Of course, he didn't. By sheer chance, he avoided any hurricanes and entered the Caribbean before supplies ran out. And despite returning there three times, he went to his deathbed thinking that he had been exploring the coast of Japan. (But not before writing a book of doomsday prophecies, of course!)

 

So yeah: Utter crank. The perfect role model if you want to revive a thoroughly debunked, 200-year-old theory responsible for the deaths of millions in horrific famines.

[Keanumoreira]

"The world is round? You surely must be joking". Oh, and they laughed, and they laughed some more, all the way along Columbus' journey to the New World...

Completely wrong. Every word, even the prepositions.

 

Ancient Greek astronomers knew that the Earth was a sphere – it was common knowledge as early as 400 BC. In 240 BC Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth to an error of less than 20%. Around 500 AD the Indian mathematician Aryabhata estimated the circumference to within 1%. The Divine Comedy, written in the early 1300s, both acknowledged a spherical Earth and discussed its implications. Mandeville's Travels, written in 1360, replicated Eratosthenes's calculation. This map, made in 1482, depicted a single quadrant of a spherical Earth after Ptolemy. In 1492, just about every educated person in Europe believed that the Earth was a sphere, with a circumference of about 25 000 miles.

 

Columbus wasn't a sole beacon of light unto the unwashed masses who warned him that his ship would sail off the edge of the Earth. He was, in fact, the crank – he denied Eratosthenes's calculation, believing that the Earth was much smaller than it actually is. He proposed sailing directly west from the Canary Islands during hurricane season, confident that he would eventually hit Asia. Of course, he didn't. By sheer chance, he avoided any hurricanes and entered the Caribbean before supplies ran out. And despite returning there three times, he went to his deathbed thinking that he had been exploring the coast of Japan. (But not before writing a book of doomsday prophecies, of course!)

 

So yeah: Utter crank. The perfect role model if you want to revive a thoroughly debunked, 200-year-old theory responsible for the deaths of millions in horrific famines.

 

I never said that EVERYBODY believed the world was flat back then. Democritus proposed the Atomic Theory when people blindly decided to follow Aristotle instead. I know Columbus wasn't the first, but he was the first to prove it to everyone, and I was talking about the people who mocked him. You are over thinking it.

[Marxist ßastard]

Okay. Whatever you say. You're Christopher Columbus.

 

EDIT: And you probably think that's a compliment.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[Keanumoreira]

Okay. Whatever you say. You're Christopher Columbus.

 

And you are getting off topic. If you want to make petty insults, then go somewhere else. This has nothing to do with the original topic.

[marharth]

@Marxist: Some of the most ludicrous things in history, that "no person in our time could possibly believe", have in fact, been proven correct. "The world is round? You surely must be joking". Oh, and they laughed, and they laughed some more, all the way along Columbus' journey to the New World, and when Ferdinand Magellan became the first person to circumnavigate the planet. Who was laughing now?

This is commonly used as a argument and I am not sure why.

 

That was before critical thinking and before the scientific method was used. It is a lot different in the modern age.

 

That doesn't matter. The principles are still the same, and challenges of equal value are presented to us all the time. There were limitations then, there are limitations now. The point is that people will always call something impossible when that isn't entirely the case every time.

It matters a lot. It is not science if you make up crap.

 

Science a long time ago mostly involved powerful people making s*** up. That is a lot different then now.

 

When you make a statement we can now observe it and use the scientific method to prove it or disprove it. During the times you mentioned that did not happen much at all.

 

The difference is back then people had no idea what they were talking about. The limitations they had didn't have anything to do with real science.

[Keanumoreira]

You are missing the point here, and I shouldn't have to tell you that "people didn't know what they were talking about" is not even remotely correct. The ancient Greeks alone were centuries ahead of their time with advanced Astronomy, Science, Mathematics, and Literature. The ideal Renaissance Man during the time of the Renaissance were educated enough to make predictions and conclusions that were or closely accurate. The Mayans in Central America gave us our modern calendar, their's being only fractions of a second off. This "people made up a lot of dot dot dot dot" is a bunch of dot dot dot dot itself. Edited January 5, 2012 by Keanumoreira

[marharth]

You are missing the point here, and I shouldn't have to tell you that "people didn't know what they were talking about" is not even remotely correct. The ancient Greeks alone were centuries ahead of their time with advanced Astronomy, Science, Mathematics, and Literature. The ideal Renaissance Man during the time of the Renaissance were educated enough to make predictions and conclusions that were or closely accurate. The Mayans in Central America gave us our modern calendar, their's being only fractions of a second off. This "people made up a lot of dot dot dot dot" is a bunch of dot dot dot dot itself.

Maybe I am missing your point but it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

You are saying that we change our minds over time, but what you are forgetting is that we also get new evidence over time and we have new methods of solving problems.

 

The world was considered flat by some people because they did not use critical thinking, and they didn't have proper evidence to prove that it was wrong. That is not the case now. If you have proper evidence and correctly apply critical thinking you can determine something is incorrect based on that.

Edited January 5, 2012 by marharth